Canada: Senate Upper Chamber makes it official: Generic "marriage" is in, trad mrrge out - Steele effect in full force?

Yesterday, or rather very late Tuesday nite, with the legislation to alter the public-legal meaning of marriage having passed the mandatory three readings and votes in the House of Commons weeks before, the third reading in the all-appointee upper chamber of Parliament, the unelected Senate, was completed and at the end of the debate was voted upon. The Senate, composed chiefly of Liberals passed the legistlation: generic marriage is in by a vote of 47-21. And today, standing in for the Governor-General, the ailing Adrienne Clarkson, in her place the Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, signed the decree of Royal Consent (I think that's the expression). We have us a new law here in Canada, becoming the fourth of the world's countries so to legislate (along with the Netherlands, Belgium, and quite recently Spain). Perhaps our countries could form a new international alliance, and ask for a seat on the UN Security Council.

Andrew Mills reports in the Toronto Star:

The new law follows the decisions of lower courts in all but four Canadian provinces and territories that overturn traditional marriage laws. So the effect of yesterday's signing is that same-sex marriages will now be performed in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Earlier this year, the Conservative party tried to delay the Commons' vote on same-sex marriage, hoping to make it an issue for the next election.

That attempt failed, and for the past three weeks, Bill C-38 has made its way through the Senate. ...

Nevertheless, the Conservatives say that if they are elected to government they will reopen the issue by introducing a bill to redefine marriage as an institution shared by one man and one woman — the exact opposite effect of the new law.
"We take the view that marriage is a heterosexual not a homosexual institution," Tory justice critic Vic Toews said. "We don't take away rights. This is simply a recognition of a very unique relationship that is heterosexual in nature."

But gays and lesbians advocating for same-sex marriage would see such a move as stripping away rights the state has now said apply to same-sex couples.

So, now we enter the period where the "behaviour changes attitude" platitude in the blog Canadian Steele's hypothesis gets tested in a very special instance. The clock is ticking .... will attitudes change once and for all? Will the exceptionality of 1woman1man marriage die from mind altogether among the great mass of Canadians of all languages? Will Lesbian intimate unions evaporate in the mist of the generic, never to find their own legal particularity in Canadian law anywhere in this vast subcontinent? Will Gay-ideology males exult openly about how they get the best of the whole deal? Stay tuned ... but don't expect anything soon ... remember attitudes are fickle and swing on their pendula to one extreme before they reach their farmost extension, then to halt at a point before beginning the descent of return. Can we reach a balanced state of particularity and difference of recognition? Will 1woman1man wedbond, with the intention of permanence, and to the exlusion of all others, will this form of intimate union every be prioritized again by the Canadian state? Right now, I doubt it. Game over. But I must add a third installment to my essay of reply to Tommy Steele before I can explain, in my terms, why I think not. - Owlb

See my blog entries for

Canadian Steele's Errors: A Syllabus

Wednesday, July 13 [#1] Ethics: Sexual Morals: Do refWrite and Canadian Steele share a kernel of truth in common?

Monday, July 18 [#2] Science: Behaviourism: Behaviour causes attitudes, says blog Canadian Steele, so you'll get over State-imposed gmarriage

Forthcoming [#3]






Link